28 thoughts on “Dr. Carson is Correct: a Muslim cannot Faithfully Execute the Duties of President of the United States”

I find it difficult to believe that Senator Cruz, an extremely intelligent man and I think a former Harvard Law Review Editor, could miss the point of Dr. Carson’s comments about the advisability of electing a Muslim President of the United States. The issue is not whether Muslim candidates should be excluded from consideration for the office, since our current President, Barack Hussein Obama, is an Islamophile in all regards, which did not exclude his consideration for the office. The question is whether a devout Muslim, who by definition would be required by his faith to follow Sharia Law over the US Constitution, would be fit for office and whether such a devout Muslim could even take the Presidential oath of office in good faith. That is a legitimate and open question, which Dr. Carson has raised in good faith.

President Kennedy confronted a similar question over whether his Roman Catholic faith would have required him to obey Papal dictates rather than the US Constitution and he addressed it directly and to the satisfaction of the majority of Americans at that time. No one who places religious or philosophical beliefs above the the US Constitution should be considered for the office of the American Presidency. That is Dr. Carson’s point, as Senator Cruz obviously knows. CDE

There are a couple very important differences between Islam and Catholicism. Catholics claim to follow Christ. If they do, then there is much about the Catholic Church they can ignore as the Catholic Church is in direct violation of Christ’s commands. So a Catholic would be correct in ignoring the religious teachings of Catholicism and following the teachings and commands of Jesus. Christ clearly differentiated between the things of God and the things of man. He also told His followers to share His message with others, but if they refuse to accept it, to leave them to Him — not to do anything about it themselves.

This is entirely opposite of Islam. If a Muslim tries to make a peaceful religion out of Islam, one where he/she can live peacefully in coexistence with non-Muslims, they are violating the commands of Allah as given by Muhammad. Islam does not differentiate between the things of men and the things of Allah. One either submits to Allah’s commands or you die — period!

The difference is, the only true freedom man has known has come from people following the principles of Christ and the Bible (i.e. the Declaration, Constitution and all those who have tried to imitate it). Whereas those who have lived under Islam have experienced some of the most repressive regimes man has ever known — especially for those who refuse to convert or submit.

That is my understanding of Carson’s position too. Which I agree with 100 %. I would also add that Obama’s tenure has proven that not only can’t we trust a muslim in office, in fact we can’t even trust an islamophile in the office of President.

Agree completely. I find I sometimes get into discussions with very committed, generally Evangelical Christians in this area as well, but the US Constitution is based on Judea – Christian values, which are entirely different from Sharia Law, so the conflict for observant Christians is less extreme. Nonetheless, a Christian who refused to support the Constitution over his or her personal beliefs should not serve as US President either.

As the descendent of Quakers, my ancestors made the decision that the protection of the American way of life as protected by the Constitution over-ruled their personal religious beliefs, which meant they fought in every US war, which was unusual among the Society of Friends. I respect those who choose to follow their own beliefs, but they are not qualified to hold high office in America, especially the Presidency.

My understanding of Islam is that observant Muslims are bound to observe Sharia over any other authority. This was Dr, Carson’s point and Cruz, Paul and the Media are grandstanding by misstating it. CDE

Chuck,
My understanding is that even the Quakers who wouldn’t carry a firearm did serve in supportive roles thus did serve the Country and Constitution. One of my family members was a CO during WWII. But he nevertheless joined the Paratroops served as a Medic ( and did end up carrying a Gun BTW ) and died along with other 82 Airborne Troops in Sainte-mere-Eglise, Normandy on June 7 1944.

Although others here are more qualified to answer this, I am hard pressed to find any pretext upon which a Christian would not support the Constitution. Certainly a Christian with deep and true understanding of it and its Foundations.

The Declaration comes DIRECTLY from Christian reasoning (Essentially, it is a re-stating of Romans 1-2). The Constitution is just one way men have tried to design government to conform to the principles of the Declaration. No Christian who is trying to follow the teachings of Christ would object to obeying the Constitution AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE EXECUTED! However, no Christian who is trying to follow Christ can obey it as it functions today.

Yes. A philosophical and moral dilemma of high degree.
To be a member of Congress and a True Christian and attempt to follow the Constitution/BofRs as intended in a time of complete lawlessness and abrogation must be an hourly test of faith and sanity.

CDE,
I agree with everyone here, but my main concern is with the similarity of the ideology of Pope
Francis and Obama.

We will need a Cruz/Carson leadership team to return America to our Declaration/Constitution,
guided by Christian Faith.

When the new President of The United States is sworn in on a Christian Bible, he is going to
need all the help God can inspire in him to present to the American people and the world that
we have regained our moral, ethical and honest form of Liberty and Freedom!
EdwardS

I go with everything you’ve said. But I can’t support Carson on the ticket.

His support of mandatory vaccines in direct opposition to personal Liberty.
His support of RESTRICTING the Second Amendment.
His Vocal support of Al Sharpton.,…saying they share the Same goals.

These three alone are in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights ( and Constitution),

HOWEVER……. HOWEVER. His comments about islam, muslims and how it relates to the Constitution and the oath of office and the very Commitment to principles ( both religious and secular ) that America stands for has RAISED him in my opinion ! And the fact he is not backing down. To me this is Huge politically !!!!

Don,
I am not fully committed to Cruz/Carson. I used their names as they are in the leading group
(front runners) at this time. I agree with what you state about Carson, but I will eventually have
to support the nominee?

I was not fully supportive of President Reagan, even when he ran for governor of California.

People change when delegated with the heavy burden of the type of leadership required
in the Presidency. Fortunately, selecting honest, ethical and trustworthy candidates in the
beginning usually reflects many of their in-office decisions.

I also have to admit that my prayers include my Leader visiting the White House, to express his
firm Catholic opinion regarding the travesty of murder perpetuated on the unborn in America
and murder of Christians world wide.

I would like to inform The Pope (in my humble way), that he spend more of his time reading
his Bible (if he has one), and reflect what Jesus said in Matthew 25-11, instead of condemning
our Capitalist Democracy and promoting the fantasy of global warming.
EdwardS

I agree with you on all counts here — especially the Pope. I have a hard time listening to a man who heads the single wealthiest organization in the world lecturing others about excessive wealth accumulation/consumption. I have a harder time when that man is supposed to know what Christ said about hypocrisy — especially hypocrisy from our leaders. Still, I do not take issue with Catholics, but with the Catholic RELIGION! It has lost its way and is leading its people astray every bit as much as the Pharisees were in Christ’s time. 😦

Agree about Catholics versus *Cathlocism*. I remember asking someone here when I first found the site after the 2012 election. I asked why the Christians in her church didn’t vote against clearly anti-Christian socialist Obama. She said something to the effect that they liked all the Rituals….the incense and form of the Church. But they didn’t really take the Word to their hearts. That stuck with me because it was “form over substance” explanation of how they approached their faith.

Some say nascent Marxism showed its face under Pius IX. That the Edicts of Immaculate Conception (1854) and Papal infallibility (1870) served to establish Mary and all Popes on an even level with God’s omniscience.

Without getting into the Spiritual minutia of the matter, there are good reasons to believe that prophecy directly addresses the apostate Catholic AND Jewish Churches (two-horned beast that looks like a lamb but speaks like a dragon). When Christ addresses the seven Churches in Revelation, it is also believed that He is addressing the Church ages. In one of them, He condemns the Church for worshiping the Jezebel (Mary). Finally, Marxism HAS entered into the Church — both Catholic AND Protestant (I can point you to a good book detailing this evolution). ‘Social Justice’ is just another way of saying Marxism.

But then, I am of the belief that Satan has already been let out of the pit for his short season of deceiving the nations. If you know the story, that will tell you where I believe we are on God’s prophetic timeline…

In revelation, when Christ addresses the seven Churches, he refers to a Jezebel, or harlot. Harlotry is a Biblical symbol for apostasy. Given the period Christ seems to have been addressing, it is probable that He is referring to the start of Mary worship by the Catholic Church. It fits — especially if one accepts that the seven Churches are the seven Church ages. If one does this, then Christ accurately depicts the Spiritual state of the Church in each age.

I can write a short post on this subject, if you think it would be of any help 🙂

Yes of course. But written to clear up that Harlot and Jezebel refer to veering into the elevation of secular people ( and ISSUES….ie, this current Pope) to the level of the Lord. Rather than Jezebel/Harlot referring to a specific person.

As you say …A Jezebel…A Harlot….. rather than THE Jezebel…THE Harlot. Because focusing on THE Jezebel deflects from the message in Revelation. Which is of course one of the ongoing goals of the Left.

As an aside. Rush was quoting someone today that noticed the Pope has/not..had/not invoked God in his speeches. Neither in opening nor closing !! If this is true….. then this is huge it would seem.

Where the Pope is concerned, there are MANY issues for concern. One of the biggest is that Christ told us — directly — the world (secular) will hate Him and His followers because of Him. Yet the world loves this Pope. Anyone who is Spiritually awake should be able to do the math on this one 😦